Criminal Court allows Deputy Minister to rep client against government

Criminal Court has ruled that there is no impediment to Environment Ministry's Deputy Minister Mohamed Raghib Ahmed acting as counsel for Hassam Mamdhooh (Mandey), who is accused of selling properties under K-Park Residence ownership, by deliberately providing misleading information to prospective buyers about apartments.

This decision comes while the country's High Court already has a standing verdict disallowing Raghib to represent clients against the state while holding a political position.

Mamdhooh is a minority share holder of Hanbo Company, a subsidiary of South Korea's HanboTech, which constructed K-Park. Prosecutor General's Office has pressed 50 counts of misrepresentation for illicit benefits and another 50 counts of fraud, and three counts of forgery and one count of money laundering. This is the first time so many charges have been pressed against a single individual in Maldives.

At the Criminal Court hearing today, prosecutors object to Raghib representing Mamdhooh as defence counsel. They argued that it was a conflict of interest and against the code of conduct for lawyers. Prosecution also took High Court's ruling as precedent, highlighting that Raghib was barred from representing a client against the state.

However, presiding Judge Ali Nadheem said that every individual has a right to choose a lawyer of their choice. Judge Nadheem also said that despite High Court's ruling, the court cannot decide whether Raghib's actions violate lawyers' code of conduct. He said that it is up to the Bar Council to decide that, and that the court can only take action against lawyers' conduct within the court room.

As such, the judge ruled that Raghib would be allowed to represent Mamdhooh in court.

Recently, Raghib acted as defence counsel in a case involving sexual assault of a child. However, when the prosecution raised the issue in High Court, the Attorney General's Office also said individuals in political positions would not be allowed to represent clients as defence lawyers.

High Court ruled against Raghib in the matter as well.